American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, Local 2910, AFL-CIO and Library of Congress (Authority decision, August 16, 1984)

Final FLRA decision. This is a final order of the Federal Labor Relations Authority on a negotiability petition. An aggrieved person may seek judicial review by filing a petition in an appropriate United States court of appeals within 60 days after issuance under 5 U.S.C. § 7123(a). Filing a petition does not stay the Authority's order unless the court orders a stay under 5 U.S.C. § 7123(c).

Plain-English summary

AFSCME Local 2910 proposed a transition period of at least 90 days for employees reassigned or transferred into new positions. The union explained that employees would continue working but would not be evaluated against the new position's performance requirements during that period. The Authority accepted that interpretation and found that the proposal did not require the Library of Congress to provide training or dictate how any training would be conducted. It held the proposal negotiable and ordered bargaining upon request. The outcome is vacated because the Library's nonnegotiability position was set aside.

Decision snapshot

• Authority: Negotiability review under 5 U.S.C. § 7105(a)(2)(E).
• Outcome: Proposal within the duty to bargain; bargaining ordered on request.
• Key point: Delaying performance evaluation for transferred employees did not require agency training or restrict work assignments.

Full text (FLRA public release)

[ v15 p541 ]

15:0541(112)NG

The decision of the Authority follows:

15 FLRA No. 112

AMERICAN FEDERATION OF STATE,
COUNTY AND MUNICIPAL EMPLOYEES,
LOCAL 2910, AFL-CIO
Union

and

LIBRARY OF CONGRESS
Agency

Case No. O-NG-612

DECISION AND ORDER ON NEGOTIABILITY ISSUE

The petition for review in this case comes before the Authority pursuant to section 7105(a)(2)(E) of the Federal Service Labor-Management Relations Statute (the Statute), and raises the question of the negotiability of the following Union proposal:

When an employee is reassigned or transferred the employee will be given an appropriate training period of not less than ninety (90) days to acquire the skills and proficiency necessary to satisfactorily perform the duties and responsibilities of the new position.

Upon careful consideration of the entire record, including the parties' contentions, the Authority makes the following determinations.

According to the Union's statement of intent, under the proposal "employees who are reassigned or transferred into different positions are to be given 90 days to familiarize themselves with the duties and responsibilities of the new position before being required to meet the performance requirements of the position." Therefore, the proposal, based upon the Union's stated intent, would delay application of performance requirements during the first three months a reassigned or transferred employee is performing the duties of a new position. The proposal only provides that employees will not be evaluated during their training period, not that employees will not be expected to perform the work assigned. Based on such interpretation, which the Authority adopts for purposes of this decision, the Authority concludes, contrary to the Agency's argument, that the proposal provides for a "training period" but does not in any manner mandate that training be provided by the Agency. /1/ Furthermore, contrary to the Agency's claims, there is nothing in the express language of the proposal which would render it outside the duty to bargain because it would deprive the Agency of discretion, if it chose to provide training, concerning the methodology, scheduling, duration, type, content, and other characteristics of any such training. /2/ Thus, the proposal here does not interfere with management's right to assign work.

Accordingly, pursuant to section 2424.10 of the Authority's Rules and Regulations, IT IS ORDERED that the Agency shall upon request (or as otherwise agreed to by the parties) bargain concerning the Union's proposal. /3/

Issued, Washington, D.C., August 16, 1984
Barbara J. Mahone, Chairman
Ronald W. Haughton, Member
Henry B. Frazier III, Member

--------------- FOOTNOTES$ ---------------

/1/ Cf. American Federation of Government Employees, AFL-CIO, Local 3004 and Department of the Air Force, Otis Air Force Base, Massachusetts, 9 FLRA 723 (1982) (wherein a proposal which would have conditioned employee evaluation on management's providing formal training was held violative of management's rights).

/2/ See Otis Air Force Base and cases cited therein.

/3/ In finding the proposal to be within the duty to bargain, the Authority makes no judgment as to its merits.